The silent era of cinema was a remarkable period. Some of the greatest films ever made hail from these early years of the medium; alternatively, no few other titles epitomize the notion of "simpler entertainment for a simpler time," and are especially difficult for modern viewers to engage with. I think it's safe to say that this is one of the latter. In its bookend portions , set in the "Garden of Eden," the humor rides a fine line between mildly clever and inventive and hopelessly tacky in its anachronisms recalling 'The Flintstones.' Fabricated creatures are humble even by the standards of the 1920s; intertitles play fast and loose with notions of Christian mythology in a way that would surely both inflame the religious and annoy the irreligious. (To the latter point, at least, I can confirm - yes.) In both the prehistoric and contemporary settings the writing also tries to be smart and cheeky about gender dynamics, though I think it's much less successful in this regard. With or without taking up the prejudice in the foundational mythology that specifically lowers and demonizes women, and elevates and lionizes men, too many jokes and gags just come off now as patronizing, mocking, and casually or pointedly sexist instead of lighthearted. Whoops.
'Fig leaves' isn't bad, but it hasn't entirely aged well. To whatever extent other features of the time dallied with norms and values well removed from those of several decades later, this is all but completely awash in it. The storytelling and comedy is thusly less relatable, and less universal, and just doesn't meet with the same success in 2023 that it must have in 1926. This isn't to say that there's no enjoyment to be had here, but the best quality in retrospect lies in those instances when a bit is witty or silly in its own right - even, yes, those many scenes playing off relationships between men and women - and not tied to distinct beliefs, mores, or attitudes. Needless to say, for all the worth that the writing can thusly claim, there's just less of it than there would be otherwise, to say nothing of the question of how funny an inclusion is in the first place. One way or another, this is a mixed bag.
Mind you, in other ways 'Fig leaves' is quite well done. The costume design is marvelous and possibly one of the actual chief highlights, with the sets only half a step behind. Some of the hair and makeup is a tad overdone, but mostly these are splendid. Howard Hawks' direction, Joseph H. August's cinematography, and arguably more so Rose Smith's editing, are altogether pretty terrific. The cast give excellent performances leaning into the ridiculousness, not least Olive Borden and George O'Brien who by far have the most time on-screen. This is true even though, sure enough, the acting falls into the same category as much of the silent era of emphatically exaggerated expressions and body language that follow from the stage and compensate for lack of sound and verbal dialogue. And I'll even say that despite weaknesses in the details that are at least on par with the commensurate intelligence, in the broad strokes the writing is characterized by some swell ideas. There is, in fact, plenty of strength here; it's unfortunate that filmmaker Hawks and screenwriters Louis D. Lighton and Hope Loring wove so much of it around discrete standards, ideals, principles, or stances that restrict the lasting power of the title.
When all is said and done, this is surely a piece that's best suggested only for those who are already enamored of the silent era and all its idiosyncrasies. Even with that in mind I think the humor is much too "hit or miss" to earn a particularly strong recommendation. This is something for those who have a major interest in some regard, who are just downright curious, or who are such avid cinephiles that abject quality doesn't necessarily into consideration. 'Fig leaves' is fun to an extent, but whereas the best of comedy never grows old (see Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Ernst Lubitsch), almost 100 years later this doesn't hold up as well as one would hope based on some of its kin.
'Fig leaves' isn't bad, but it hasn't entirely aged well. To whatever extent other features of the time dallied with norms and values well removed from those of several decades later, this is all but completely awash in it. The storytelling and comedy is thusly less relatable, and less universal, and just doesn't meet with the same success in 2023 that it must have in 1926. This isn't to say that there's no enjoyment to be had here, but the best quality in retrospect lies in those instances when a bit is witty or silly in its own right - even, yes, those many scenes playing off relationships between men and women - and not tied to distinct beliefs, mores, or attitudes. Needless to say, for all the worth that the writing can thusly claim, there's just less of it than there would be otherwise, to say nothing of the question of how funny an inclusion is in the first place. One way or another, this is a mixed bag.
Mind you, in other ways 'Fig leaves' is quite well done. The costume design is marvelous and possibly one of the actual chief highlights, with the sets only half a step behind. Some of the hair and makeup is a tad overdone, but mostly these are splendid. Howard Hawks' direction, Joseph H. August's cinematography, and arguably more so Rose Smith's editing, are altogether pretty terrific. The cast give excellent performances leaning into the ridiculousness, not least Olive Borden and George O'Brien who by far have the most time on-screen. This is true even though, sure enough, the acting falls into the same category as much of the silent era of emphatically exaggerated expressions and body language that follow from the stage and compensate for lack of sound and verbal dialogue. And I'll even say that despite weaknesses in the details that are at least on par with the commensurate intelligence, in the broad strokes the writing is characterized by some swell ideas. There is, in fact, plenty of strength here; it's unfortunate that filmmaker Hawks and screenwriters Louis D. Lighton and Hope Loring wove so much of it around discrete standards, ideals, principles, or stances that restrict the lasting power of the title.
When all is said and done, this is surely a piece that's best suggested only for those who are already enamored of the silent era and all its idiosyncrasies. Even with that in mind I think the humor is much too "hit or miss" to earn a particularly strong recommendation. This is something for those who have a major interest in some regard, who are just downright curious, or who are such avid cinephiles that abject quality doesn't necessarily into consideration. 'Fig leaves' is fun to an extent, but whereas the best of comedy never grows old (see Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Ernst Lubitsch), almost 100 years later this doesn't hold up as well as one would hope based on some of its kin.